Laws For The Gentiles

[ralliann]

Honestly, i don't know. I've read so extensively... This is an obscure position. Let me give it to you as best as I can piece it together.

To begin with, it is believed that the church at Rome was founded by believers who first heard the gospel in Jerusalem at Pentecost, listening to Peter preach after he was filled with the Holy Spirit.

There is a famous document where a historian during Claudius' reign named Suetonius writes, “Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome.”

There are two interpretations most probable for this. One is that there was a conflict between Jews and Christians in Rome, and the Jews got kicked out. The other possibility is that this uprising occurred during the time when Christians WERE mostly Jews, Messianic Jews, and they caused problems for the Romans, and so they got kicked out. This seems to be supported by Scripture.

Acts 18:2 “And he (Paul) found a certain Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, who had recently arrived from Italy with Priscilla his wife, on account of Claudius commanding all the Jews to leave Rome.”

So it would seem that the Church as it was originally founded in Rome was a Messianic Jewish Church, meaning full of Jewish believers.

It is believed that Peter had a hand in this for several reasons.

1. Acts 12:17 states that Peter "left for another place."
2. 1 Peter is written from "Babylon," first century Christian slang for the city of Rome, the heart of pagan hedonistic idolatry.
3. ECF referencing Peter in Rome. For example, Iranaeus, in "Against Heresies" states “Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, laying the foundations of the Church.”

The thing about Paul, is that by the time he wrote to the church at Rome, and by the time he actually got to Rome, a church already existed there.

After Claudius died, many of the Roman Jews that had been exiled did return, such as Aquila and Priscilla. But they would have found a very different church, with a Gentile majority and Gentile leadership. This was the Church that Paul wrote to.

It is thought that there was a LOT of ethnic tension in this Church -- in no other letter does Paul mention "Gentile" or "circumcision" as often. He seems to want to address the arrogance the church, looking down on unbelieving Jews as if they were better. But you have to wonder if some of the ethnic tension also existed between them and some of the minority Jewish believers. Was this the seeds of the eventual replacement of the Messianic Jewish Church by the Gentile Church? All this is speculative.

Anyhow, that's how I remember it, and I've tried to google the documents that I remember being connected to it. At my age, I just no longer remember every book I've read. I wish I could provide a better citation for you.

Thank you. I wish you could remember too, but being older myself I do truly understand.
I wonder how much of all this had to do with Rome giving power to the Sanhedrin to establish religious law among jew's. What was law from the religious leaders was also backed by Roman law. We may disagree with some of the decisions we find in the Talmud....an example is my other post concerning it being not lawful for Gentiles to keep the Sabbath....These things were very much also sanctioned under Roman rule among Jews and Judaism.
Whatever was Rabbinic law in the Sanhedrin was law to the Romans with regards to the religion of Jews. So would it really matter if mixed or not? Gentiles would behave as God fearers alike at any synagogue. This I think would be a protection of their apostolic leaders, as their disciples (proselytes).
Ac 25:8 While he answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended any thing at all.

 

[ralliann]

If you want to live by the man made rules of the Jews, then this may be true. However, those in Messiah Yeshua are to live by his rules and his Father YHWH's rules. Neither of them made such a ridiculous rule.

Let's examine that foolish rule.

And Reish Lakish says: A gentile who observed Shabbat is liable to receive the death penalty, as it is stated: “And day and night shall not cease”(Genesis 8:23), which literally means: And day and night they shall not rest. This is interpreted homiletically to mean that the descendants of Noah may not take a day of rest. And the Master said (57a) that their prohibition is their death penalty, i.e., the punishment for any prohibition with regard to descendants of Noah is execution. Ravina says: If a descendant of Noah observes a day of rest on any day of the week, even one not set aside for religious worship, e.g., on a Monday, he is liable.
​

Notice this rule is established from Genesis 8:23 (22 in our Bibles);

Gen 8:21 And YHWH smelled a sweet savour; and YHWH said in His heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.
Gen 8:22 While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.
​

In other words, as long as the things in verse 22 remain, YHWH will not do the things in verse 21 again. Since YHWH will never destroy every living thing again, then the things in verse 22 will never cease. Do you see anything there saying the descendants of Noah may not take a day of rest?

Also, note what Ravina said. Descendants of Noah cannot rest on Sunday or any other day of the week. They must work seven days a week. This is absolute lunacy which I will never submit to. It is exactly the opposite of what YHWH inspired Isaiah to write;

Isaiah 56:4-7 For thus says YHWH unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant;
Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off.
Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to YHWH, to serve Him, and to love the name of YHWH, to be His servants, every one that keeps the sabbath from polluting it, and takes hold of my covenant;
Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.​

Eunuchs and strangers are Noah's descendants.

The problem here is...In the time these things were written, there was no freedom of religion. What was law from the Sanhedrin was to be obeyed, as Roman rule dictated among practitioners under "Judaism" in the empire. This is no small thing. We know that much later Christians were deemed (atheists) illegal and lost their exmption from idols as distinct from Judaism under roman law. That backdrop cannot be left out of these things. So while we may disagree with what was Sanhedrin law, it was law absolute for Judaism under Roman rule period.

 

[gadar perets]

The problem here is...In the time these things were written, there was no freedom of religion. What was law from the Sanhedrin was to be obeyed, as Roman rule dictated among practitioners under "Judaism" in the empire. This is no small thing. We know that much later Christians were deemed (atheists) illegal and lost their exmption from idols as distinct from Judaism under roman law. That backdrop cannot be left out of these things. So while we may disagree with what was Sanhedrin law, it was law absolute for Judaism under Roman rule period.

I doubt the law we are discussing was made by the Sanhedrin. Reish Lakish most likely made his statements about Gentiles and Shabbat around 250 CE and Ravina most likely made his statements around 400 CE.

 

[ralliann]

I doubt the law we are discussing was made by the Sanhedrin. Reish Lakish most likely made his statements about Gentiles and Shabbat around 250 CE and Ravina most likely made his statements around 400 CE.

That is why I worded it the way I did. However , Reish was commenting on Sanhedrin law which was prior to him wasn't he?
Another thought...what would have been the difference between these two synagogues???
The only difference would have been God fearers not being proselytes unto circumcision. They would always remain Gentiles, and God fearers as Christians And therefore as Paul taught equal before God in Messiah. no difference whatever.
Lies on Paul were designed for persecution....legally by Roman law....
Ac 21:21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.
Ac 21:25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.

Mt 23:15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.